tv AC 360 Later CNN October 29, 2013 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
>> and so, anderson, web site has been a political problem the administration says will go away and all will be fine. this is much more of a personal policy problem. back when the president was saying those things it was kind of like an ad for a new drug. the flowers and roses and nice soft music and everything's promised it will be great. then at the end they kind of mumble everything might not be perfect. the administration says of course there would be changes but most people would get to keep these. now that this is real, now that people are enrolling, people at work are getting open enrollment for next year and this is happening, it's a giant credibility test for the president. and the insurance industry consider the source says it's the administration's fault that as they were doing this time insurance industry said you guys are writing the regulations too strict. you're going to affect people, knock people off their plans and you promised no to do that. what the administration says is that they said we got this. we don't need to listen to you. we're fine. now they have a problem. >> jim acosta had an exchange with jay carney at the white house today. let's listen to that. >> did the president mislead the american people when he made that comment repeatedly?
>> jim, no, the president was clear about a basic fact. if you had insurance that you liked on the individual market and you wanted to keep that insurance, through 2010, 11, 12, 13, and in perpetuity if you wanted it and it was available you could. you were grandfathered in. what no health care reform could envision or responsibly stipulate is any plan that might come along in the next few years would be grandfathered in because that would undermine the basic premise of providing minimum benefits for the american people. >> andrew what about this? should the president have been clearer and not said so categorically if you like your plan you can keep it? >> of course he should have. it's obviously a small proportion of most americans. you can have all sorts of caveats about this. if you really have a bare bones insurance plan that doesn't meet the standards of the aca you're going have to change it.
you're going to have to upgrade it. the technical issue, whether the day before 2010 you could keep the same plan, everything else was grandfathered in but the plan itself would be amended, you keep the same plan, as opposed to different plan, look, it wasn't a lie but it was something -- well, i'm not sure we can sayen on cnn. can you say b.s.? it was b.s. it wasn't exactly a lie. >> in democrat speak it's called malarkey. >> come on. no, no, no. >> john, i want to ask you. what jay carney was talking about being grandfathered in. as i understand it, the law did grandfather in plans that people had before march 2010. but then hhs wrote regulations that narrowed down the definition so much that a lot of those plans that were grandfathered in fell out of the grandfather clause and people are losing those plans. >> reporter: anything washington does we always focus on the legislative battle.
actually finding enough votes to pass the bill. the real test and the real policy challenge in washington is always writing the regulations, especially when it's something so complicated. that is what is happening now. and i think andrew hit it right on the head. is it a lie? it was certainly the intent of the administration that if you have a plan and you like it you could keep it. but they are the ones writing these rules now, and some people are getting knocked off. in this political environment that's a personal policy challenge for anyone who's being hassled by this. they might even realize in a year or two they liked their plan better. it's either the same amount of money, a little less or not so much more. but at the moment it's a personal hassle on something that's incredibly personal to you, your health care. for republicans it's t ball. >> charles, it could cost some people more money. they might get subsidies. >> it will cost some people less money. that i think is the bigger failure here, which is that you want to disclose why you're on offense. you don't want to have to make up for it when you're on defense. now you're on defense and somebody else has brought this to the public attention and they're having to deal with this on defense. that's not the position that the administration wants to be in
the president could very easily have said -- and this would not have been a big deal to say, the vast majority of americans will be able to keep their health care as it exists now under obama care. and for the small number of 5% of the insurance market that -- >> do you mean they knew? >> that's a really good question. john mentioned the word credibility. i think there's an accretion of things happening that make it feel like obama care is unfolding in a wait administration never even saw. we have the web site disasters, we have these numbers of people who are losing their plans, which these numbers seem much higher than anything that was suggested. and i think americans, certainly i'm getting the sense that the administration kind of really didn't see clearly what the consequences of its own signature initiative would be. >> i don't know about that, frank. you know, this thing about not knowing things is getting a little old. >> i'm not saying it's okay. >> doesn't know about the irs, nsa, obama care. >> it's not okay that it wasn't known. >> or the commander in chief of
the united states. >> it may not be a good look, but i think this is a missed opportunity, right? the vast majority of the people who are not -- who buy their insurance on the individual marketplace are single. those are -- that's a democratic voting bloc, right? almost half of them are below 40 years old. the youngest group is the voting brock. you could have said that and be talk together people who are generally on your side, anyway. so you could have said this and taken away this republican talking point that says -- i'm speaking for the american people. but they're not speaking for the american people. they're speaking for people that are not really affected by this. >> john, the administration says they knew about this, right? >> reporter: well, the administration was told about this. the administration was told about this as the regulations were being written. a from the outside from the insurance industry. b, from the inside from some of their own people. then the question is how high up the chain of command did that go. that is one of the big things, anna just touched on it, in washington right now. secretary clinton said she was never told about the security
warnings in benghazi. the president said he was never told about angela merkel's phone and things like that. the president says he wasn't told about the web site. that raises questions about the culture of the management. don't you want the boss to know when something could undermine his important initiative or undermine relationships in the world? so republicans are going to do right now to this president what democrat did to george w. bush about the same point. not only raise the credibility question but competence question. >> i want to talk more about that in our next block. but just on obama care, i guess one benefit for the administration it certainly knocked off the front page all the messups with the web site. this is not really the way you want to go about it. >> that's not a good thing. i think it's a problem to conflate all these things together. these are really separate issues. but if the boss is going out and over and over saying something that somebody in administration knows not to be true, that's a very different animal.
and i think at that point, absolutely someone has to step forward and say, hey, you know, you keep saying this one thing. [ overlapping speakers ] >> one at a time. >> his staff is keeping him in a bubble of ignorant bliss? >> i don't believe it. >> or they're claiming to be keeping him in a bubble of ignorant bliss. neither of the two are good. >> andrew you're saying? >> i would just love politics that obama kind of promised where people could say at the get-go we're doing health care reform. there will be some losers and there will be some winners. the losers are going to be the current free riders, the people who are scamming the system without paying into it through insurance. the winners will be all those people who are out there who are limited income who desperately need health insurance and cannot now afford it. the real problem right now it seems to me is that with these stories coming out you want those people to go on that web site to see what subsidies they're going to get and they can't. >> and they can't. >> so they can't even tell if this premium increase is going to be compensated by the
subsidies. >> there are other ways to do it. we have to keep saying that. >> come on, then. >> you're talking about the toll-free number? >> there's numbers, centers. [ overlapping speakers ] >> every time you call one of those toll free numbers they still have to go and put night a computer. and they're having trouble. >> the computers have to log onto the web site which still has all the problems. >> what i think if you knew there was a problem with the web site, which i think somebody knew, right? you could have delayed the web site portion. >> which they could have. but kathleen sebelius is saying the law said october 1st but that's not the case. >> this is his signature thing, main thing, and also a long-awaited chance to do something approaching universal health care. it may be the last chance politically in a long while. and all this stuff is going wrong that feels like it should have been preventable. >> you reported this on your web site. this is from the administration which had a vaunted web effort during its campaign. can you imagine during the
campaign if their web site had been like this during the campaign? do you think they would have stood for that? >> the whole point of them was they knew the web. they were able to reach these people especially these young people. these young people are critical to the success of this venture. and they screwed it up. >> can you imagine what it would have been if the obama campaign web guys were work on -- there are other smart web guys and girls and women. [ overlapping speakers ] >> an interview the secretary gave your network they didn't have the a team on the table. >> sebelius is now telling sanjay gupta we're going to bring in our a team. >> you didn't have a team for signature -- >> when obama was asked once what his basic deepest flaw was, he said, deep laziness. and i wonder whether this is not the equivalent of that first debate last year. the guy just didn't focus. playing too much golf. >> how could you not focus? >> you like to say stuff like that, though.
just go ahead and admit >> it you seem to like it a lot. >> we're going to take a quick break. we're going to get some more on this. also coming up spying on our friends. u.s. intelligence officials admit it's been going on for decades. should we really be so shocked at all and should we be doing it? also what the the nsa story and the obama care mess say about the president's management style or lack thereof some would say. we'll discuss that around the table coming up. man: sometimes it's like we're still in college. but with a mortgage. and the furniture's a lot nicer. and suddenly, the most important person in my life is someone i haven't even met yet.
who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. as you plan your next step, we'll help you get there. see who does good work and compare costs. it doesn't usually work that way with health care. but with unitedhealthcare, i get information on quality rated doctors, treatment options and estimates for how much i'll pay. that helps me, and my guys, make better decisions. i don't like guesses with my business, and definitely not with our health. innovations that work for you. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.
welcome back. tweet us using #ac360later. the nation's top nsa officials went before congress today. without copping to specifics, director of national intelligence said in so many words yeah of course we spy on our allies. they spy on us. it's been going on for decades. is it naive to expect less? is this what countries do to each other? >> i think on some level you should expect that, right? how you're supposed to take your allies' words they're always going to be allies? that's just natural. the big issue it's a p.r. disaster on top of the p.r. disaster. now an international p.r. disaster? it's coming precisely at the wrong time for the administration. but i think it's a normal thing. >> i don't think it's just a p.r. disaster, charles. i think it's this nsa system set
up under bush and cheney which obama has refused to stare down. i think it's a juggernaut that's out of control. hoovering up so much information, untram meld powers and taken this kind of surveillance to a whole new comprehensive level that picks up all the stuff. >> the fundamental principle has not changed if you could spy on any world leader you would do that. >> we were doing that before the nsa was put on steroids before 9/11. >> before it even existed. >> if they could spy on us they would, too. some of them probably do. so let's just face the reality that yes, in 2013 and before, spying does happen between country, between spouses, between bosses and employees. it happens with this technology. what we're seeing, i think, is that in the ideal world this shouldn't happen between friends. so the realists -- >> i think that's naive that friends thing. >> the ideas are not meshing.
>> the idea your friends are always your friends when you're talking about international geopolitical politics, i'm not with that. i do take your point with the fact the nsa is ridiculously out of control, and i don't think that anyone really knows the extent of what's happening. >> it breaks the international community's image that they had formed the perception of president obama. here he is the constitutional -- >> did they think that he really stopped all spying on people? >> no. i'm not saying what they thought. >> they can't believe that. nobody believes that. >> remember candidate obama standing in berlin in front of those hundreds of thousands of people. if dick cheney were doing this, if we found out that george w. bush and dick cheney were doing this, nobody would bat an eyelash. >> they were in 2002. >> nobody bats an eyelash about it, right? but when the constitutional scholar, the idealist, the poetic man -- >> she grew up in east germany where they would tap everything.
so there is a cultural clash here. my own view about this i'm giving up. okay. take whatever you want. i think the transparency that one requires in this new media and in this new world, i'm just saying i give up -- totally given up. no expectations of privacy at all. >> just text the nsa stop looking. >> i don't even care. >> i'm reading your e-mails right now. >> someone probably is. it's easily done. i'm staggered by how much they can do. so at some point this is also a general cultural adjustment to new technologies and the ability to -- i mean, these are not documents on paper that are securely. these are things you can tap into anywhere. >> i was going to say i think one of the reasons there's not more public outrage about this is a lot of people feel the way you do. we kind of all know we're living in an era. we still send e-mails and text messages we shouldn't. but we all sort of know in the back of our heads we're living
in an era where any true expectation of complete privacy is gone. >> we have senior political analyst david gergen. you look at a country like france which actually does a lot of spying on the united states, particularly for trade secret, for private companies, france is well-known. obviously china does tremendous amounts as well. i was surprised to learn about france's extensive spying efforts and seemed to be kind of unapologetic about it. >> very unapologetic. i think there are two two issues here. whether we should be trying to spy on angela merkel the way other nations try to spy on us. i would have to say that's a close call. but it ought to be done very thoughtfully. and if you are spying on the personal cell phone of the the pivotal player, most important leader in europe you would take great care. and consider if it's exposed how much it will hurt you in
germany. to go back to andrew sullivan's point, this is a hugely hot issue in germany given the nazi background and given nastasi. the other issue is, the white house on something as serious as this, said the president didn't know, he didn't realize. he was never told. >> do you buy that, david. >> it is almost inconceivable to me. we now knew that the white house knew, it would be a gross negligence of the part of the white house official not to tell president and to weigh that in some meeting. mr. president we have 35 different leaders we're now spying on. do we want to continue that or not. i think it's really hard to believe the president didn't know >> it if you take two product els of presidential governance, take jimmy carter who was famously scheduling the tennis courts in the white house. total mastery of every tiny granular detail. we didn't like that. or reagan who seemed to sail through everything and didn't even know we were trading armaments for hostages or
managed to talk himself into not believing he was doing it. i think obama is more reagan than carter to tell you the truth. i think that's his model. i'm not sure that every single detail -- not sure it could. when you think of how vast this stuff is, how many things in this nsa. i don't want the president to be -- >> that is not minute detail. this a giant issue with international implications. >> it's also so ineffective that it hasn't produced interesting intelligence that the president has been made aware of, why is it still going on? >> berlesconi would be interesting to listen to. >> you'd think tapping the phone chancellor of germany would require the president to know about it or to know where intelligence is coming from at a certain point. >> absolutely. and listen, it may not come in the daily briefings from the cia and everything like that, but there is a time when you become
president when you get serious briefings about everything that's going on in the government. you're suddenly being let foot inner sang tum. they tell you all the secrets. you have a chance to ask. it's inconceivable to me something this big didn't come to his attention. now the question is why would they pursue it? what this shows is, actually as important as angela merkel is as important a friend she is, they don't quite trust her. don't quite trust her relationships with the russians. a little soft on that. they don't quite trust where she is on iran. they think she's a little soft on that. they're not quite sure where she is on some of the huge economic issues. that's what really burns inside the german chancellory. after all this they don't quite trust her. we send out all these millions of people to greet him when he became president as anna navarro said and you still don't trust me? >> i don't think it's personal. all the disclosures have been major this. idea that this one particular one because he didn't know about it somehow are bigger than the rest they're not.
nsa seems to be scooping up everything they have not specifically been known to do. >> do you think he's a traitor for doing it, snowden? do you think it's done damage to the united states? >> i think it probably has done some damage. this idea that as an american citizen i do want to know these sorts of things, but i think that if you're in charge of keeping us safe, that's a whole other calculus. they know things we don't know. i'm not privy. >> let's say you just run a company. could you run a company with total transparency? everything that you internally decide, the salaries of people, the different meetings? do you think all those could be out there? and that's why i have -- i'm sympathetic because i think what it's done, what snowden has done is blow the whistle on this out of control nsa. and the system is working. congress is going at it. the white house is finally getting the spine to stand up to
the cia and the nsa. which he hasn't had before. but in general, this stuff is going have to happen at some degree, at some level. i'm tired of the pieious notion just because you have secrets you're wrong. you're not. >> hold on one second. the nsa reports to the president. the intelligence agencies report to the president. if they're out of control that's the president's responsibility to get them back into control. to say they're out of control and therefore the white house can't be blamed for this, i'm sorry. he's in charge. the buck stops there. it does not stop at the nsa. >> you're the president and you know when you're entering a post-bush world you've got to avoid a terror incident. >> this is not about george w. bush. >> no, it is, i'm afraid. >> no, it's not. intelligence issue, the cia issues go way back into the 60s and 70s. [ overlapping speakers ] >> he's been president now for five years.
when do we stop blaming bush? how long do we -- >> his damage was so immense. >> he's going to be dead and buried and you're still going to be blaming bush. >> i will for many things. a lot of what we're dealing with in future generations can be traced to that disastrous presidency. >> he's had six years to find out. he's had six years to make a decision. >> andrew's making a bigger point than bush. >> to stop it, to change it mid field. >> andrew's making a bigger point than push that shouldn't be lost here. he's saying we have worries about terrorism and we as voters as citizens have expectations of being kept safe from it. yet we don't want to hear about anything untoward happening in that apparatus that keeps us safe. there's something a little bit adolescent about the expectation we up kept safe but nothing weird happen in the servicing of that. >> david gergen, great to have you on. up next should marijuana be legal in the united states for the first time? majority of americans absolute ly -- i'll take it up with the panel. >> did you say tech it up?
[uncle laughing] okay,we go the other way,okay? [niece]one,two,three,four,five, six,seven! [uncle laughs]there's ten spaces,you want to try again? [uncle]yeah? welcome back. for the first time a majority of americans are in favor of legalizing marijuana. according to a recent poll, 58% say pot should be legalized, huge jump in a year. when gallup first asked the
question in 1969 only 12% favored legalization. the times they are a change. washington and colorado have legalized recreational marijuana use. medical marijuana is legal in 28 states as well as washington, d.c. anecdotally i was beaten in celebrity trivia by cheech marin of cheech and chong game. he's very quick. dr. drew pinsky is joining us from dr. drew on call. are you for legalization? >> i'm neutral. i don't really care. the idea of there being good drugs and bad drugs is a flawed idea. how do you measure a good drug verse as you bad drug? >> do you put pot in the same category as some of these other drugs which the u.s. government actually does? >> oh, it's silly to say marijuana is bad but alcohol is good. silly to say marijuana is bad but tobacco is good. >> the classification by the dea is correct as the most dangerous drug it could possibly be?
no medical use? >> no. the fact there's no med call use is also absurd. the fact we as physicians are able to use -- i use morphine all the time. it's a very dangerous drug if you're an opiate addict. but if you're suffering i'm probably going to give that to you. why shouldn't i be able to use any medication to ease human suffering. silly. >> why is the federal government attached to an absurdry? >> you're asking me. >> why not position standing up and saying this is crazy? [ overlapping speakers ] >> hang on. >> do we want to deal with this as a scientific issue. i think even if you're not for legalization, you should absolutely be for decriminalization. because what the both local, state and to some degree federal government has done is use marijuana, which is not really as harmful as many other things could be, as a huge club, particularly against young black and hispanic men, destroying
whole generations of kind of earnings potential, people who could otherwise have been gainfully employed, add together tax base. could have married and held together families. and that whole structure is destroyed because we have criminalized marijuana and law enforcement has used that criminalization as a tool to whack whole generations. >> a tool but it certainly has caught a lot of people, mainly african-american and hispanic young men in a net that they don't need to be in and they shouldn't be in. >> and particularly since their usage rates are no higher -- >> you're for legalization? >> absolutely. >> obviously not for, what if people below 18? >> it should be the same as alcohol. maybe higher age. the only harm they can see thought does is in the early adolescent brain. >> brain development. >> very clear it harms adolescent brains.
not clear it harms adults. >> in a much more pernicious way. that's clear. but the adult brain, occasional use of cannibis not different. >> there is a difference between medical marijuana and nonmedical marijuana? >> what do you mean? there's no difference. >> there's no difference? >> there can. >> be the problem is, listen, california unfortunately my profession was used to put forward a political campaign by making it -- every patient i treat with addiction has a medical marijuana license. every one. >> anybody can get it. >> you can ride your bike and fall off and you can get a prescription. if you go in, put your hands out. there are barkers outside the ones in venice beach pulling people in it's a silly thing. shows how silly it has become. >> to answer your question, you can and in fact they are generating marijuana strains very heavily what they call cannabinoids.
as opposed to thc. so children with serious seizure problems get the resin very high in cbd and very low in thc and it's really helping them. you can get pot that doesn't make you high. >> you can get pot that you don't have to smoke. [ overlapping speakers ] >> if somebody's suffering and needs the part that makes them get high and they're suffering why shouldn't they. but the fact is -- >> children though i'm saying. >> the use of it medically is very limited. the medical use thing. it's very limited, trust me. >> i don't think it's limited at all. >> it's limited, trust me. >> i don't like doctors who tell me they know everything. i know my own research. >> and physicians should be able to prescribe it where it's appropriate absolutely. >> do you want to talk about your own research? >> stand up and make the thing legal.
>> we're helpless as physicians. >> you don't believe it has -- i was in a clinic -- >> it has therapeutic value for some people. >> i was in california where a person would say if you're depressed you should get hindu kush. if you've got a stomach ache it's this. you're saying that's not true? [ overlapping speakers ] >> ambien guys. >> no, seriously, the actual substances within marijuana plant can be and should be examined and investigated by medical science. >> yes. no one disagrees with that. >> we've finally got an nih trial on this use for cannabinoids for children in terms of epilepsy and seizures. why did it take so long? because it's still illegal, charles. we don't know what benefit this drug has. lancet, britain's medical journal called it the aspirin of the 21st century. that's not limited. >> the reason that this hasn't
been explored is because drug companies can't make money off it. do you buy that? >> cannibis is already entering into colorado -- >> the plant. >> tobacco is a plant. let's not forget that. tobacco is a plant. that was a serious problem. >> the big point you do want to get illegal element out of the trade. >> listen. here's the big problem you guys are missing it. people still have a moral model as it pertains to the human relationship to substances. it has nothing to do with morality. it's a by biological event. it makes them behave in immoral ways, some people who use the drugs, they want to make it a moral issue. >> we're going to talk about obesity the next thing. we legalize pot we're all going to get the munchies. >> they're called fat letters. notes sent home from school more than a dozen states to let parents know their child is obese. some states are stopping the
i work at walmart. i'm a pharmacist. sales associate. i manage produce. i work in logistics. there's more to walmart than you think. vo: opportunity. that's the real walmart. his day of coaching begins with knee pain, when... [ man ] hey, brad, want to trade the all-day relief of two aleve for six tylenol? what's the catch? there's no catch. you want me to give up my two aleve for six tylenol? no. for my knee pain, nothing beats my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] the parking lot helps by letting us know who's coming. the carts keep everyone on the right track. the power tools introduce themselves. all the bits and bulbs keep themselves stocked. and the doors even handle the checkout so we can work on that thing that's stuck in the thing. [ female announcer ] today, cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so everyone goes home happy.
across the country 18 states are sending home so-called fat letters to alert parents that their child's body mass index, the bmi, is unhealthy and doesn't make the grade. some are obese. the notices are part of an effort to fight childhood obesity, a big concern obviously according to the c dc nearly 13 million kid in america, about 17% are obese. tripled since 1980 in america. a lot of parents don't like these letter fat letters. massachusetts stopped sending them over issues of self-esteem and bullying. >> of course you would never have heard of it. you probably got a letter saying the kid don't eat. >> dr. drew, the bmi to me seems ridiculous a lot of times when you look at it. >> right now as i sit here by bmi standards i am obese. >> i didn't want to mention that.
>> it's true. >> i'm about to get up and leave this table, i just want you to know. this conversation makes me very uncomfortable. >> he thinks i'm rolling out of here. >> a different conversation. what's the threshold for owe obesity. >> the other issue this idea of a fat letter is the stupidest thing i've ever heard. if you are a kid and you are overweight you know it without a letter. you know you have a second chin, a pot belly. >> this is you when you were a kid? >> thes. >> that's me when i was a kid. until i was eight, nine i was extremely fat. they didn't need to send me a letter home for me to realize that. i had this thing called a mirror. all that would have done was made me more self-conscious, more anxious. i would have either started throwing up my meals like i did in college or i would have dug into a pint of haagen-dazs. if you make dids unduly anxious and more self-conscious about the way they look you are not going to goad them toward physical fitness but toward neurosis.
>> i don't understand why the school simply doesn't require a physical. >> that's what -- this is part of the physical. >> but this is a conversation the doctor should have between the doctor, the parent, the kid, not a teacher passing a letter that you have to take on the bus and everybody knows it's a fat letter. >> it's concern the parents may not understand nutritional issues send them to a nutrition. >> the best way you learn to eat well is by modelling, by modelling the way people around you are eating, your parents are eating. there are all sorts of ways to put more good food in front of kids to kind of exhort them to eat that to make that seem normal. sending a fat letter home? that's ridiculous. >> if you're going to be sending educational material you send it to all the parents of all the kid. >> of course. >> there may be thin kids who never eat a vegetable. he's admitted in the past. >> i'm not a big vegetable
eater. i'm working on them. i drink them now. >> in vodka. >> the broader question is whether or not we have to look at what we're doing educationally in terms of whether or not all kids get what i used to get, which is at least one hour of physical education every single day. now they're racheting it. >> now schools are cancelling it. >> cancelling recesses in some cases. then the kids come home and they're on the x-box or whatever until they do their homework. so i was trying to add this up on the way to the studio. i was thinking we were probably playing three or four hours a day. you'd have an hour of physical education, 30 minutes of recess, right after school we went out and played again until our parents made us come home and do homework. this idea that our kids today are just not getting -- they're getting shortchanged. >> sounds like paradise. >> that's only one of the problems. there's a snack food industry today that's way different and more insidious i think.
>> not just snack food but whenever you watch a football game, i want to buy pizza all the time. so much stuff being enticed. >> our whole culture that amuses me so much having lived in europe, our valuing of the value of food. >> it's unbelievable. >> i lived in europe for two years. i never saw an all you can eat buffet. italians would not have thought it was of value to eat until you can't eat anymore. >> does the parent have responsibility in this? >> the parent has principal responsibility. >> if the parent is letting down the kid by giving the kid too much bad food, there is not some mechanism in which you can reach that parent? the school has some interest in getting to that parent and saying look you're really hurting your kid? >> do you think that's what a fat letter does. >> no. >> do you think a parent that is not feeding his or her child correctly, do you think getting a letter from the school saying your child has a second chin is going to change that sunny don't think so. the way to do it is through
public education which is well-intentioned but often ineffective. one of the things the first lady is trying to do with her campaign which i salute but i think has severe limits and i think a bit ridiculous but what she's trying to do is educate people. trying to reach those parents and say there's a whole other way to eat, a whole other group of foods. >> the bottom line is, think i we all agree, that judging kids' bodies is not a role for schools and teachers. >> and it's a bad thing. generally it's a shaming bad thing. >> for kids to be thinking about their body in that way is probably not healthy. >> there is a bigger issue we do have to address, which is if the schools are failing both on the eating side, constant french fries as a vegetable sort of way. and because they're trying to teach to the test and drilling the kids and taking an away things that used to make school fun and active. >> fun is not necessarily the same thing as active.
to me it was misery. >> i love it. but i'm just saying -- >> i had to play rugby in the pouring rain week after week. [ overlapping speakers ] >> we do as a society have to address the issue. >> i can't pay attention to anything you're sayinging. >> at the same time we keep hearing obesity, i keep hare we are starving, too. are we overfeeding our kids or -- >> you can eat a lot of empty calories and be starving your money. >> it's time consuming to eat right. i think that's the thing. >> there's also an emotional component to eating. people medicate their emotions with food. we are encouraged to do so. there are multiple layers to this. >> the emotional component the fat layer is so insidious. >> what i think is important to have people understand because the big overweight, a lot of
times runs in tandem with people who are poor because they can't afford things. >> yes. >> but it is possible. not possible for everyone, but it is possible. i grew up very poor and we literally grew -- vegetables i ate we grew them. >> in louisiana. >> no, it is possible that you can be poor and also eat well. and i think that we have to get that kind of education across, which i think is -- >> people don't have primary care physicians, have to go to emergency rooms. >> hello obama care. >> we're now back to the first topic. >> if we can get the web site to work we can send the kids to the doctor. >> while you're waiting for the web site don't be noshing on stuff. >> i wonder how many people we've already caused to go out and buy hamburgers. >> another quick break. coming up stories you might not have heard of. i'll ask the panel what's your story next. (vo) you are a business pro.
maestro of project management. baron of the build-out. you need a permit... to be this awesome. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle... and go. you can even take a full-size or above, and still pay the mid-size price. (aaron) purrrfect. (vo) meee-ow, business pro. meee-ow. go national. go like a pro.
what's your story today? >> i thought it was fascinating. you guys have heard of water boarding, nails being removed. now torture is playing britney spears. britney spears' music is being played for the somali pirates in order to drive them mad and make them surrender. >> i don't believe that. >> what music would make you lose your -- >> any music that is loud enough and long enough and you can't get away from you end up being tortured. i mean tortured in a serious sense. >> for me it would be those animal sounds that sometimes when you go into a fancy -- >> i am so proud of the football players of my alma mater, grambling state university. they went on strike to protest budgets cuts. the state has cut the budget for that school 57% in seven years. i mean, no school could survive that. and because they have this great
football program, only the football team could bring attention to this story. >> you just got yourself kick off the distinguished alumni. >> i think i probably got invited back. but it really highlights a problem that's happening particularly in the south, particularly in louisiana where you see this real tension between these old institutions that were set up basically to -- >> big marching band. they played at the inauguration. we had them on the show. >> they played at many inaugurations. but there's a history there where these schools were set up to educate children of ex-slaves. and that tension now in how you bring that into a modern context and whether or not you still need these separate institutions is a real question. and they're battling that out. >> charles, tell them they don't need to strike. they just need to play britney spears music. >> i've been interested in some research that's gotten attention lately that says kissing is not necessarily for foreplay or arousal but it's to investigate the come patibility of a
partner. so i look back now and i feel less bad about all the bad kissing in my life. it wasn't an erotic disappointment. it was an anthropological investigation. >> what did you find out? >> you can sense the immune competency and genetic sort of fittedness. theoretically. >> that's got to be a male centric study. only men would say kissing is not about foreplay. that's got to be a male centric -- >> touche'. >> if you meet somebody who's a bad kisser, there's nothing you can do about it. >> bad kisser is incompatibility. >> there's a whole lot of bad stuff. >> that's it for us. we're out of time. thanks for watching "ac 360 later." we'll see you again tomorrow night. good night.
as your life changes, fidelity is there for your personal economy, helping you readjust along the way, refocus as careers change and kids head off to college, and revisit your investments as retirement gets closer. wherever you are today, fidelity's guidance can help you fine-tune your personal economy. start today with a free one-on-one review of your retirement plan.
this is "piers morgan live." welcome to the viewers in the united states and around the world. a government shut down for 16 days, spies spying on spies and online health care sign up, more complicated than doing your taxes all designed by canada company. that and the president maintained your coverage won't change. >> if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. if you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep it. we'll keep this promise.